GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 265 



the conclusion which the justices draw from the 

 testimony of the witness, mast be as general as that 

 testimony. In the case of R. v, Pickels, M. 19 G. 

 2. it was laid down as a rule, that the want of the 

 particular qualifications required by the 22 and 23 

 Car. 2. c. 25. ought to be negatively set out in con- 

 victions. And the only question there was, Whe- 

 ther it was necessary to add the inferred or argu- 

 mentative qualification, collected from the 5th of 

 Anne, c. 14. but not mentioned in the 22 and 23 

 Car. 2. c. 25. of his not being lord of a manor ? 

 Exceptio probat regulam : Nor was the general rule 

 at all doubted or disputed in that case. In indict- 

 ments upon the 8 and 9 W. c. 26. for having a 

 coining-press, every thing which shows that the de- 

 fendant had no authority must be negatively set out : 

 And so it was done in the indictment of Bell, which 

 was lately argued before all the judges. I take the 

 point to be settled by the constant tenor of all the 

 authorities; and I think upon very good reason (if 

 there was need to enter into the reason at large, 

 after it has been fully settled already). Mr. J. Deni- 

 son concurred, and said it was a clear case, and that 

 it was fully settled and established, that in these con- 

 victions, the want of the particular qualifications 

 must be negatively set out. If not, the justices have 

 no jurisdiction to convict the defendant as an of- 

 fender. And the evidence and the adjudication 

 ought both of them to be, that he had not the qua- 

 lifications which are specified in that act, nor any of 



